NYT vs OpenAI copyright lawsuit is like Hollywood's early fight against VCRs

Legal Battle Intensifies as OpenAI Must Surrender Millions of User Logs

The copyright battle between The New York Times and OpenAI has escalated dramatically, with a federal judge ordering the AI company to hand over 20 million ChatGPT user logs. This landmark ruling could reshape how artificial intelligence companies handle training data and user privacy across Asia and beyond.

Magistrate Judge Ona Wang's November 7, 2025 order comes despite OpenAI's fierce objections on privacy grounds. The company's Chief Information Security Officer Dane Stuckey described the ruling as "fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy," highlighting the tension between legal discovery and user protection.

The Stakes Keep Rising in America's Biggest AI Copyright Case

Microsoft, OpenAI's primary backer, has drawn parallels between this lawsuit and Hollywood's initial resistance to VCR technology in the 1970s. The comparison isn't mere hyperbole: both cases centre on whether new technology that uses existing content constitutes fair use or copyright infringement.

The lawsuit, filed on December 27, 2023, seeks billions in damages without specifying an exact amount. Judge Sidney Stein's April 4, 2025 decision to deny OpenAI's dismissal bids means the case will proceed to trial, potentially setting precedent for AI training practices globally.

"The order would force OpenAI to disregard legal, contractual, regulatory, and ethical commitments to hundreds of millions of people, businesses, educational, and governments around the world," OpenAI argued in its court filing objecting to the preservation order.

The implications extend far beyond America's borders. As Asian countries develop their own large language models, the outcome could influence how companies like South Korea's AI giants approach training data acquisition and copyright compliance.

OpenAI's Impossible Training Dilemma

OpenAI has openly acknowledged the challenge at the heart of this case: it's "impossible" to train cutting-edge^✦ AI models without using copyrighted materials. In a filing to the UK House of Lords, the company explained that copyright covers virtually every form of human expression, from blog posts to government documents.

This admission has profound implications for the AI industry. If training on copyrighted content becomes legally untenable, it could fundamentally alter the development trajectory of large language models. The challenge is particularly acute in Asia, where copyright complexities vary dramatically between jurisdictions.

Asia's AI Industry Watches Nervously

While the case unfolds in New York's federal court, Asian AI companies are paying close attention. The precedent could influence how regional players approach content licensing and training data acquisition. Companies developing local language models face similar challenges with copyrighted materials in their training datasets.

"Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy," said Dane Stuckey, OpenAI's Chief Information Security Officer, criticising the court's demand for 20 million user logs as unjustified and potentially harmful to user trust.

The music industry has already shown how copyright battles can reshape AI development. Sony Music Group's aggressive stance against unauthorised AI training has forced companies to reconsider their data sourcing strategies. Similar dynamics are emerging across creative industries in Asia.

OpenAI has attempted to address concerns through licensing deals with major publishers, including agreements with Axel Springer and ongoing talks with CNN, Fox Corp, and Time. However, the patchwork approach may not satisfy legal challenges or provide comprehensive solutions for the industry.

The VCR Analogy and Fair Use Defence

Microsoft's comparison to Hollywood's VCR resistance carries significant legal weight. In the landmark Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios case, the Supreme Court ruled that VCR technology constituted fair use despite enabling copyright infringement. The decision hinged on the technology's capacity for substantial non-infringing uses.

The AI training debate mirrors this precedent. Microsoft argues that using copyrighted content to train language models doesn't supplant the market for original works but rather teaches models about language patterns and structure. This distinction could prove crucial as courts evaluate fair use claims.

The current legal landscape remains complex. Recent developments in AI copyright battles across creative industries suggest courts are taking a case-by-case approach rather than establishing broad precedents immediately.

• Fair use defences rely on proving the training process transforms original works rather than simply reproducing them
• Market substitution remains a key concern, with publishers arguing AI-generated content could replace their articles
• The scale of training data usage far exceeds previous copyright disputes, creating novel legal questions
• International variations in copyright law complicate global AI development strategies
• Licensing agreements may provide clearer legal frameworks but raise questions about market concentration

What does this lawsuit mean for other AI companies?

The outcome could establish precedent for how courts evaluate AI training practices, potentially requiring comprehensive licensing deals or forcing companies to develop alternative training methods using only public domain or licensed content.

How might this affect AI development in Asia?

Asian AI companies may need to reassess their training data strategies, particularly for local language models. The precedent could influence regional copyright interpretations and licensing requirements across different jurisdictions.

Why is OpenAI fighting the user log disclosure requirement?

OpenAI argues that revealing millions of user conversations violates privacy commitments and could expose confidential business information, potentially undermining user trust and competitive positioning in the market.

Could this case kill large language model development?

While unlikely to stop development entirely, the case could significantly increase costs through licensing requirements and force companies toward more restrictive training approaches, potentially slowing innovation and raising barriers for smaller players.

What happens if OpenAI loses the case?

A loss could result in billions in damages and force industry-wide changes to training practices. However, the case's complexity suggests appeals would likely extend the legal process for several more years.